First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 107

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Condolences for Victims of Apartment Fire in Hong Kong

Teresa Wat

Introductions by Members

Statements

Condolences for Victims of Apartment Fire in Hong Kong

Hon Chan

Introductions by Members

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M225 — Secure Procurement in Respect of China Act

Tara Armstrong

Bill M226 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Dana Lajeunesse

Members’ Statements

Mining Day

Darlene Rotchford

University of Northern B.C.

Kiel Giddens

Career Education Week

Sunita Dhir

Dress for Success Event and Career Development for Women

Kristina Loewen

Cedar Yellow Point Artisan Tour and Ladysmith Festival of Lights

Stephanie Higginson

Parade with a Purpose Fundraiser for Youth Mental Health

Gavin Dew

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Oral Questions

Cowichan Tribes Land Title Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad

Hon. Niki Sharma

Residential Tenancy Legislation and Supportive Housing Safety Concerns

Peter Milobar

Hon. Christine Boyle

Government Action on Homelessness

Rob Botterell

Hon. Christine Boyle

Government Spending Priorities

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Post-Secondary Tuition Policy

Gavin Dew

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Emergency Health Care Services in Tumbler Ridge

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Josie Osborne

Closing of Forest Industry Mills and Production Facilities

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Lorne Doerkson

Petitions

Steve Kooner

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2024-25

Reports from Committees

Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform , first report, November 2025

Jennifer Blatherwick

Ward Stamer

Rob Botterell

Tabling Documents

B.C. disaster and climate risk and resilience assessment, provincial report, October

CleanBC independent review panel, final report, Rising to the Moment , November 2025

Public Guardian and Trustee of B.C., annual report, 2024-25

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole

Bill 29 — Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Rosalyn Bird

Heather Maahs

Jeremy Valeriote

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 32 — Mental Health Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2025

Hon. Josie Osborne

Claire Rattée

Elenore Sturko

Rob Botterell

Brennan Day

Anna Kindy

Wednesday, November 26, 2025

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Reann Gasper.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Jennifer Blatherwick : I stand to introduce four guests from the Service Employees International Union:

Tyler Downey, president of SEIU health care; John Klein, secretary-treasurer; Gissel

Yáñez, director of strategic initiatives. Tyler, John and Gissel visit us from Ontario,

and they are accompanied by their B.C. organizing manager, Krystal Smith.

Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Pete Davis : Well, happy Mining Day, everyone.

On behalf of the official opposition, I’d like to welcome all the companies, suppliers

and associations joining us today in the gallery. Mining built this province, and

we need it to continue to drive our economy forward.

Thank you for being here, and I look forward to meeting many of you this afternoon

and tonight.

Welcome.

Larry Neufeld : With us today on the precinct, and I believe in the chamber with us, are three members

from Conuma Coal that are here for Mining Day. They work for Conuma Coal, a metallurgical

coal supplier in the southeast that provides some excellent jobs and an excellent-quality

product to the world markets.

I’d like to recognize Kendra McGreish, Jessica Simson and Cindy Paymen.

If you can give us a wave, that would be fantastic.

Please welcome them.

I have one more introduction. I see the individual standing here before me, so I’m

going to do my best to embarrass him as I can. One of the most tenacious, most ferocious

defenders of his…. He’s the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, and he’s been a tremendous proponent

for the people of Tumbler Ridge. I was planning to say he’s one tough old fart, but

I found out this morning that he’s actually younger than I am.

I will apologize to the Minister of Health that I got to him first, but I would like

everyone to help me make Mayor Darryl Krakowka feel very welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Today is Mining Day here at the B.C. Legislature. It’s a great opportunity to learn

more about B.C.’s mining sector, their contribution to this province and the help

they provide to build the economy of this province and create good jobs for the people

of British Columbia.

We have today the whole spectrum of the mining sector here, from explorer to a junior

mining company led by a former member of this House, Todd Stone; the Association for

Mineral Exploration; the major mining companies led by the Mining Association of B.C.’s

Michael Goehring; and the thousands of companies that supply the mining sector, led

by the Mining Suppliers Association’s Alec Morrison.

Of course, there is almost everybody from the mining sector here today, and there

will be a reception in the evening as well.

I just wanted to say briefly that I’ve been working with them for about a year. I

want to say thanks to them for their exceptional contribution to this province, creating

jobs, providing critical minerals. The relationships we have developed working together

are the best.

I want to say thanks to them. We will work with them to make sure we keep moving mining

projects forward responsibly and sustainably.

I would ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Statements

Condolences for Victims

of Apartment Fire in Hong Kong

Teresa Wat : I am deeply saddened by the tragic, fatal fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong. As someone who

was born, raised and educated and worked in Hong Kong, this heartbreaking news feels

especially close to home.

So far, 36 people have died, and 279 people are still out of touch. My thoughts and

heartfelt condolences go out to the families, friends and loved ones of the victims.

May the injured recover soon, and may the affected community find strength and support

during this difficult time.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Christine Boyle : I have two sets of guests that I hope the House will join me in welcoming today.

I have two guests here from Islands Trust to witness the tabling of the 2024-25 annual

Islands Trust report: Laura Patrick, Islands Trust Council chair; and Rueben Bronee,

CAO of the Islands Trust.

Will the House join me in thanking them for all of their good work and making them

feel welcome.

Additionally, I am delighted to welcome representatives from the Thompson-Nicola regional

district here: Barbara Roden, chair of the board; as well as Scott Hildebrand, CAO;

and Corbin Kelley, the external relations and advocacy adviser. It was great to get

to meet with them and talk about the important work and leadership they are providing

in the region.

Will the House join me in making them feel welcome as well.

The Speaker : Member for Kamloops–North Centre.

Ward Stamer : Thanks to the minister for stealing a little bit of my thunder. I’d like to echo

her comments that we do, indeed, have three representatives of the Thompson-Nicola

regional district. We have five MLAs that actually touch and are part of the TNRD.

I look forward to meeting them later. I know they’ve got a lot of important meetings

with the government on many concerns.

So again, will the House make the TNRD feel welcome.

The Speaker : That was the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, not North Centre.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I want to thank all the members of the House. It felt like everybody, every member

of the House, was at lunch today with the Council of Canadian Innovators.

We’ve got Benjamin and Kiersten, who helped put the event together. We had representatives

from Trulioo, Sanctuary AI, Certn, Global Relay, AltaML, WELL Technologies, Redbrick

and much more.

I want to thank them for hosting us all for lunch today and thank the members for

attending.

I want to welcome them to the House today. Please join me in welcoming them.

The Speaker : Now the member for Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar : I was Kamloops–North Thompson before, so there you go. You got a break on that.

The Mining Minister mentioned it as well, but as I said the other day, it does seem

to be “former MLA returns to the Legislature” week in this building. In question period,

sometimes we were compared to certain Muppet characters, since we sat next to each

other, in terms of the heckling. But a good friend and former colleague is here, Todd

Stone.

Will the House please make him welcome.

Heather Maahs : I would like to introduce Marcus Neels, who is here from Chilliwack. He’s a grade

12 student. He is the membership chair of my riding association. He is working in

my office and here for the day in Victoria on work experience.

There’s one more thing I almost forgot. Keep your eyes open for Marcus. He’s a real

go-getter in the world of politics.

Please welcome Marcus today.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : As we pass the one-year mark of the creation of the Ministry of Infrastructure, I’m

very pleased to be able to welcome several members of our small but mighty team to

the Legislature today.

These members of the public service come to us from other ministries across government,

bringing an incredible diversity and depth of experience that we benefit from as a

ministry each and every day and that British Columbians benefit from in their communities.

[1:45 p.m.]

I hope that those joining us will feel comfortable enough to rise as they’re recognized.

We have Josie Midiang’a, manager of divisional operations with infrastructure policy

and partnerships; Tasmin Millard, executive administrative assistant with infrastructure

policy and partnerships; Sandhya Devkate, project and divisional coordinator with

infrastructure policy and partnerships; Ali Prince, executive director, corporate

services and community capital development; Joanne Walsh, director of capital financing

and reporting with corporate services and community development; and Deborah Gogela,

director of capital projects and planning.

We have Niki McVicar, senior executive assistant with the deputy minister’s office;

Michael Taylor, documents coordinator with the deputy minister’s office; Nicole Fyfe,

manager of executive operations with the deputy minister’s office; Autumn Doucette,

senior writer, deputy minister’s office; Dana Eckardt, director of business services

and community capital development; Krista Twigg, admin coordinator with community

capital development; and Mandy Woytkiw, office administrator with community capital

development.

Would the House please join me in thanking them so much for helping to build our communities

— the hospitals, the schools, the long-term care homes and the student housing projects

that we all rely on — and welcome them to the House today.

Macklin McCall : Yesterday, throughout the day, members of the Conservative caucus participated in

scenario-based training with the RCMP at the armory here on the legislative precinct.

This training focused on police use of force, officer decision-making and the realities

that front-line members face in British Columbia.

It was an eye-opening and important opportunity, because for those of us privileged

to serve in this Legislature, understanding what an officer experiences in the field

is essential. The pressures, the training, the split-second judgment calls and the

responsibility that comes with the lawful use of force are not abstract concepts.

They are real, they are complex, and they shape the day-to-day work of the men and

women who keep our communities safe.

I want to, again, extend my sincere thanks to the RCMP, to the National Police Federation,

to the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Legislative Assembly Protective Services for their

assistance, coordination and support in making this training possible.

Will the House please join me in welcoming the RCMP and the National Police Federation

to the Legislature.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : As a part of Mining Association of B.C.’s delegation that’s here today, Josh Moraes

is here. He is here on behalf of the United Steelworkers, who represent thousands

of forestry and mining workers across the province, including members at Highland

Valley Copper and Red Chris mines.

Josh is responsible for legislative and policy issues at the USW for all across western

Canada. He previously served as a staffer in our government for former ministers Harry

Bains and Murray Rankin and later supported our full NDP caucus as stakeholder relations.

He also was the regional director that got many of us elected in this House in the

last election.

If everyone would please join me in welcoming him to this House.

Reann Gasper : Today I want to welcome a special friend. She is here on the precinct all week. She

helped me on my campaign. She is the one you want in your corner.

I want to thank her for all her support with the House.

Please make her feel welcome.

Thank you, Shari.

Statements

Condolences for Victims

of Apartment Fire in Hong Kong

Hon Chan : I would like to echo my colleague the member for Richmond-Bridgeport. I have been

monitoring the news in Hong Kong, my hometown, for the entire night.

My deepest condolences to the families who have been affected by this tragic fire.

I know at least one firefighter has lost his life in the line of duty. It is one of

the largest and deadliest fires in Hong Kong history, and the number of deaths is

still rising.

May the victims rest in peace, and may we honour the bravery of all the firefighters

at the front line.

Introductions by Members

Jordan Kealy : I’d like to introduce a great friend of mine. When I sat on the Peace River regional

district board as a regional director, he helped teach me democracy.

He is also currently the mayor of Tumbler Ridge. He is fierce and tenacious at standing

up for his community when it comes to the emergency room, when it comes to mining.

I just wanted to give a big thank you to Darryl Krakowka for coming down.

[1:50 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu : I’d like the House to welcome Mike Bertuzzi. He was a great help to me during the

campaign, and he continues to be a great help to everyone on this side of the aisle.

Would the House make him feel very welcome.

Hon. Lisa Beare : I have two introductions today.

First, we have an online school watching question period today. We have the Oak and

Orca School — their teacher Rachel Wright and a group of 14 students in grades 10

to 12.

Please would the House make them feel very welcome.

In the gallery today, representing the Career Education Society of British Columbia,

is Executive Director Terri-Ann Wynans. She joins us today as we mark Career Education

Week across B.C., a week to emphasize the value of career education and helping students

discover their future. Terri-Ann and her team are an essential partner to government,

and we want to thank them.

I have a fun fact for you, Hon. Speaker, as well. Terri happens to be the mother of

— we will all know him in this House — Tim Wynans from PremTech, who helps us all

out here.

A big welcome to Terri.

Gavin Dew : I join the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth in welcoming the folks from the Council

of Canadian Innovators who are here today.

It was very striking to see the number of people who gathered at their lunch from

across the aisle, from all parties. I know that for them and for people in their sector,

they’re very big fans of competition. They’re believers that competition makes for

better markets; makes for better products; makes for better outcomes for people, for

consumers and for businesses.

It causes me to reflect on the fact that this House and this place is at its best

when we are actually focused on competing over who can have better ideas and make

things better for people. I wish we would do that more often.

Bryan Tepper : Just a quick thank-you to the representatives of the students for post-secondary

that are here and met with our caucus today. I’ll be meeting later on with Solomon

Yi-Kieran and thank them for being here with their concerns.

Also, I hear it’s the Langley-Abbotsford MLA’s birthday today, so I’ll just wish him

a happy birthday, if everybody would give him a hand.

George Anderson : Today is a very special day in that I’d like to wish my colleague from Langley-Abbotsford

a very happy birthday. I won’t say how old this person is, but I will note that their

first campaign slogan was “Railways are the future.”

So happy birthday.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker : Okay, if there are no more introductions, I have something to say.

Hon. Members, on Tuesday, November 25, the Third Party House Leader raised a point

of order regarding the introduction of a bill by the Leader of the Fourth Party. Specifically,

the Third Party House Leader took issue with the scope of the introductory remarks

offered by the Leader of the Fourth Party.

The Chair thanks the Third Party House Leader and the Leader of the Fourth Party for

their submissions and is now prepared to rule on the point of order.

The House may benefit from a historical perspective on the proceedings known as the

introduction and first reading of a bill. As members know, British Columbia adopted

the Westminster parliamentary system, which is still adhered to in the U.K. House

of Commons.

In that institution, the practice remains that a bill is introduced by reading of

the

short title of a bill and by an order for the bill to be printed. This is as succinct

and focused as parliamentary procedure gets. For over a century, this House followed

the same practice in accordance with Standing Order 74, which provides: “Every bill

shall be introduced upon a motion specifying the title of the bill.”

[1:55 p.m.]

In 1985, that practice changed upon the adoption of recommendations presented by a

parliamentary committee. One evolution in parliamentary procedure stemming from that

came in the form of practice recommendation No. 5, which states: “Permit a statement

not to exceed two minutes by the member in charge of introduction of a bill to explain

its purpose. No further debate shall be permitted at this stage.”

As noted in Parliamentary Practice of British Columbia , fifth edition, at page 239, at introduction and first reading, a member is expected

to introduce the bill by stating its title and briefly outlining its purpose. This

expectation is reflected in other parliamentary authorities that the Chair consulted.

For example, Beauchesne , sixth edition, at paragraph 645, states: “At this stage, it is not permissible to

argue the bill. Discussion on the bill’s merits may take place on the motion for the

second reading. The member is only permitted to explain the provision of the bill

in order that the House will understand its purport.”

As the Chair noted in guidance to the House on Thursday, November 20, the provisions

of practice recommendation No. 5 are not to be abused to allow for the introduction

of arguments that should otherwise be presented by members in subsequent stages of

the debate on a bill.

As is the case with all members of the House, the Chair does not have the benefit

of viewing the contents of a bill upon introduction and first reading, so a member’s

remarks in relation to the bill’s contents may not always be clear. But it appears

to the Chair that any member is perfectly capable of providing a brief, objective

overview of the contents of their bill without offering arguments or opinions, which,

as noted, can be canvassed in subsequent stages of debate.

While the Chair tends to provide leniency, the Chair again wishes to assure the House

that the Chair is prepared to intervene should a member stray from these expectations

at introduction and first reading of a bill.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M225 — Secure Procurement in

Respect of China Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Secure Procurement in Respect of China Act.

Tara Armstrong : I move that a bill intituled Secure Procurement in Respect of China Act, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first

time now.

Every procurement decision made by the government is a choice, a choice about who

we trust and who we empower. For too long, British Columbia has been directing public

money to a hostile communist dictatorship in China, whose actions threaten our citizens,

undermine our democracy and destabilize our allies.

This bill takes a simple, principled stand.

First, it prevents the province from purchasing goods or services from entities owned

or controlled by the People’s Republic of China when comparable goods or services

are available from Canadian businesses or from our trusted democratic partners.

Second, it requires full transparency. The bill compels the government to publicly

disclose the total value of all contracts awarded to PRC-controlled firms.

The need for this bill is clear. The PRC is interfering in Canadian elections, as

confirmed by Justice Hogue’s federal inquiry. It has targeted Canadian citizens, like

Victor Ho, with multi-million-dollar bounties, as confirmed by Global Affairs Canada.

And it has imposed punishing tariffs on seafood and agriculture sectors.

The PRC continues to threaten our democratic allies, such as Taiwan. Why would we

reward such hostility with multi-billion-dollar contracts?

[2:00 p.m.]

British Columbia has a choice: stand with Canada or enrich a hostile communist dictatorship.

This bill ensures that we choose Canada.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Division has been called.

[2:05 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.]

Members, the question is first reading of the bill introduced by the House Leader

of the Fourth Party.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 84

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Rustad

Banman

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Valeriote

Botterell

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Gasper

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Sturko

Boultbee

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

NAYS — 4

Warbus

Wat

Kooner

Chan

Tara Armstrong : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Point of Order

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Just a point of order, Hon. Speaker.

I listened to your ruling, and I want to quote, “Recommendation No. 5 is not to be

abused to allow for the introduction of arguments that should otherwise be presented

by members in subsequent stages of debate,” and also your reference that any member

is perfectly capable of providing a brief, objective overview of the contents of the

bill without offering arguments or opinions.

I think the record would show that the House Leader of the Fourth Party started her

statement by offering arguments and opinion and finished her statement by offering

arguments and opinion. So I’m just a little confused by the ruling versus what happened

immediately after that.

I wonder if the Speaker might share where it is an argument versus where it is fact-based,

because this very much was an argument and not so much about the contents of the bill.

The Speaker : Minister, your point is well taken. Thank you very much for the reminder to the House.

[2:15 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M226 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act ( N o . 2), 2025

Dana Lajeunesse presented a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Dana Lajeunesse : I move that a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first

time now.

Today I wish to introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, known as

Xavier’s law. The bill is named in memory of Xavier Rasul-Jankovics, a young boy from

my community whose life was tragically taken by a reckless driver earlier this year.

His family’s advocacy and determination have shaped this legislation and its goal

to prevent tragedies like this from happening.

Xavier’s law creates a new 30-day driving prohibition for reckless driving, the kind

of extreme, dangerous behaviour that puts lives at risk. It gives police clear authority

to act immediately when someone drives in a way that shows wilful disregard for the

safety of others.

The bill also requires police to report every reckless driving incident to the superintendent

of motor vehicles, ensuring that serious patterns of dangerous driving are reviewed

and acted upon using the existing powers of the Motor Vehicle Act.

By defining “reckless driving” based on proven models used in other provinces, this

bill closes a gap in our current law and brings British Columbia’s approach in line

with some of the strongest road safety standards in Canada. Xavier’s law focuses on

prevention, accountability and public safety. It gives police and the superintendent

of motor vehicles new tools to protect the public and reinforces that reckless driving

has no place on our roads.

I’m proud to introduce this legislation in Xavier’s name and in honour of every family

who has lost someone to dangerous driving.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Dana Lajeunesse : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Mining Day

Darlene Rotchford : It’s an honour to rise in the House today to recognize B.C. Mining Day and to celebrate

an industry that has been central to our province’s story since the mid-1800s.

British Columbia is home to more than half of the minerals identified on Canada’s

critical minerals list. Across our province, advanced exploration and development

projects are underway for copper, nickel, zinc, rare earth elements, and so much more.

Mining remains a cornerstone of our economy, supporting roughly 40,000 good, family-supporting

jobs in our communities large and small. Today approximately 1,000 mining and mineral

exploration companies are headquartered right here in British Columbia, a clear reflection

of the confidence that investors place in our skilled workforce, our resources and

our regulatory stability.

Last year alone, mineral exploration expenditures reached $552 million, the fourth-largest

on record, and mining production was valued at $16.5 billion. British Columbia produces

54 percent of Canada’s copper and is the country’s sole producer of molybdenum.

Our government is committed to building on this strong foundation. Last year we launched

B.C.’s critical minerals strategy to seize a new opportunity. In the global clean

energy economy, we continue to foster strong partnerships and attract investments

through competitive fiscal incentives, such as the mining exploration tax credit,

the flow-through share tax credit and the new mine allowance. We’ve also made real

progress in permitting efficiency, reducing a regional permitting backlog of 66 percent

for mineral explorations and 67 percent for sand and gravel over the last two years.

We recognize the tremendous opportunity in this sector, but we also must acknowledge

the risk borne by the people who work in it. I grew up in Pictou county, Nova Scotia,

home of the Westray mine disaster in 1992, where 26 miners were killed. That tragedy

led to the creation of the Westray law and serves as a lasting reminder of the importance

of workplace safety. Recent deaths in British Columbia’s mining sector reinforce the

need to continue vigilance so every worker returns home safe.

On this B.C. Mining Day, we will honour the workers, the families, the communities

and the partners who make this industry possible.

Thank you to everyone who contributes to the responsible resource development in our

province of British Columbia.

[2:20 p.m.]

University of Northern B.C.

Kiel Giddens : This is a special year as the province celebrates the 35th anniversary of the University

of Northern British Columbia, an institution born from one of the most remarkable

grassroots movements in our province’s history.

The dream of a northern university goes back many decades, but its modern story began

in 1987, when a handful of local residents gathered in Prince George to ask a simple

question: can the North build a university of its own? Their idea sparked a movement

that swept across the region. Communities rallied. Local governments endorsed the

vision, and northern British Columbians made it clear that our region was ready.

By 1988, a message was carried here to Victoria. Some 16,000 northerners signed a

petition in support of creating a full university for northern B.C. And in a symbolic

gesture, each person contributed $5 to show that this institution belonged to the

people of the North. Their determination led ultimately to this Legislature passing

the UNBC Act on June 22, 1990, officially creating the University of Northern British

Columbia.

Among the early leaders who shaped the future of the institution was UNBC’s first

chancellor, Iona Campagnolo, who would later serve as British Columbia’s 27th Lieutenant

Governor. Her leadership helped anchor the values of excellence, integrity and service

that continue to define the university today.

UNBC has grown into one of Canada’s leading small research universities, and as the

main campus is in my riding of Prince George–Mackenzie, I am so proud of the legacy

those early citizens created.

To everyone involved — from the founders, the petition signers, to all of the faculty

and staff, to the students and alumni: thank you for shaping a university built by

the North for the North.

Please join me in recognizing UNBC on its 35th anniversary.

Career Education Week

Sunita Dhir : I rise today virtually to recognize Career Education Week in British Columbia, a

week dedicated to celebrating the importance of career exploration and skill development

in our K-to-12 schools.

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Terri-Ann Wynans, executive director

of the Career Education Society of B.C., who has joined us in the gallery today.

From November 24 to 28, students across B.C. will have opportunities to explore career

options and plan for their future through local, regional and provincial career education

events and activities.

Career development is one of the three pillars of our education system, helping every

learner become an educated citizen. It goes beyond preparing students for a job. It

is about helping them discover their interests, build their skills and understand

how they can contribute to a healthy society and a strong, sustainable economy. Our

school system aims to help learners reach their full potential and develop the knowledge,

skills and attitudes needed to thrive beyond the classroom.

Through partnership with stakeholders, our government supports career programs that

connect diverse fields — from technology to trades, health care to arts — gaining

the skills that will serve them wherever life takes them. Through counselling, guest

presenters and career fairs, students build confidence, curiosity, experience and

leadership.

Now in its second year, Career Education Week gives schools, communities and employers

a chance to celebrate this important work. I want to thank the educators, mentors,

counsellors, organizations and families who guide students on their career paths and

strengthen our economy.

Dress for Success Event and

Career Development for Women

Kristina Loewen : Today I rise to honour Dress for Success. On November 1, I had the privilege of attending

their annual event, Watch Her Soar, where we gathered to celebrate the organization’s

successes and the very real impact it has on lives. It was an evening filled with

stories of courage, gratitude and hope. The evening featured makeovers, fashion shows,

auctions, a speakeasy and even a casino.

[2:25 p.m.]

I really wish I had a slideshow running behind me so you could see the makeovers —

but not just the hair, makeup and clothing — to see how the countenance of the women

changed. That was the transformation. It was more than clothing. It was confidence,

dignity and a renewed sense of possibility.

Behind every outfit is a team of volunteers and mentors who stand behind women as

they rebuild, re-enter the workforce or reinvent their path forward.

In Kelowna, where the cost of living and housing pressures put real strain on families,

especially single mothers and women re-establishing financial independence, Dress

for Success fills a critical gap. They help clients move from surviving to thriving

by offering career development programs, mentorship, networking and ongoing support

long after the clothing appointment is over.

At the November 1 event, I heard stories of women who walked through their doors uncertain

and overwhelmed and walked out feeling seen, valued and equipped to succeed. One of

the volunteers, now a successful woman in leadership, shared her own story of living

in a bus shelter and having to plead for a job.

Well, that manager that she pleaded with gave her a challenging interview, made her

work for the job, and also bought her two outfits and a chance to regain her dignity.

That transformation is something a program alone cannot replicate. It comes from community,

compassion and human connection.

I want to extend my sincere thanks to the volunteers, donors and organizers who make

Dress for Success Kelowna possible. Their work strengthens our local workforce, our

families and our communities.

To the women they serve: your resilience inspires us. We see you, we support you,

and we celebrate your successes.

Cedar Yellow Point Artisan Tour

and Ladysmith Festival of Lights

Stephanie Higginson : It is a magical time of year, and in Ladysmith-Oceanside, that’s marked by two annual

events that highlight the very best of the holiday season.

The Cedar Yellow Point Artisan Tour runs for three weekends in November and December.

For more than four decades, this self-guided tour has been a vibrant showcase of the

creativity, skill and spirit of our local makers and producers. There are 17 stops

for visitors to travel through the winding roads of Cedar and Yellow Point and step

inside the workshops, studios, barns and galleries where art and agriculture come

to life.

Whether it’s hand-turned wood, pottery, textiles or local farm products, every stop

on the tour reflects the talent and character of this remarkable community. The Cedar

Yellow Point Artisans Tour strengthens our local economy, supports livelihoods rooted

in creativity and is a testament to the power of art and agriculture to bring community

together.

This Thursday marks the beginning of the Ladysmith Festival of Lights, which will

run until January 10. Since 1987, the Festival of Lights has been one of Vancouver

Island’s most magical traditions. Every year the town of Ladysmith transforms into

a breathtaking display of more than half a million lights, illuminating not just our

streets but our sense of community and our shared holiday joy.

The festival is powered by volunteers — people who give countless hours to string

lights, creating a celebration that brings families together from across the Island.

Their dedication reminds us that the brightest lights in Ladysmith-Oceanside aren’t

the ones on our buildings but the ones in our communities.

As we head into the holiday season, I invite you all to Ladysmith-Oceanside to experience

the Cedar Yellow Point Artisans Tour and the Ladysmith Festival of Lights. Let’s support

the artisans who give our regions their character and charm and remember what the

Festival of Lights represents: generosity, connection and the spirit of holidays at

its very best.

Parade with a Purpose

Fundraiser for Youth Mental Health

Gavin Dew : Parade with a Purpose began with something very small: Pam, Shadia and Santa Claus

driving through Kettle Valley, collecting food and lifting spirits in the darkest

days of the pandemic. What started with just three humble floats on neighbourhood

streets has quickly grown into one of Kelowna’s most meaningful holiday traditions,

lighting up downtown and drawing thousands of people to Bernard Avenue.

From its humble beginnings in Kettle Valley, this parade has been about more than

lights and music. Partnering first with the Bridge Youth and Family Services, Parade

with a Purpose helped bring the youth recovery house to life, raising over $700,000

to support a live-in program for young people facing substance use and mental health

challenges.

[2:30 p.m.]

Now in partnership with the KGH Foundation, every dollar raised supports critical

youth mental health care in our region, from new services in West Kelowna to mobile

outreach and Georgia’s wish, creating safe spaces for conversation and support.

For the Turgeon and Doty families, this is not abstract. The purpose behind the parade

comes from real loss — Ryan’s story, Cody’s story and Georgia’s story.

Georgia died before her 19th birthday, after battling mental health struggles without

the support she needed. Ryan died from mental health and addiction after being given

fentanyl by a neighbour. Cody passed away from an accidental overdose. These are not

statistics. These are our kids, our neighbours and part of the fabric of our community.

Their light continues to guide this work.

This parade is their families’ prayer in motion, a way of turning grief into purpose,

sorrow into service and heartbreak into hope. And 100 percent of the funds raised

go to youth mental health care. It’s not done for recognition or rewards. It’s done

because it matters.

So if you live in or near Kelowna, please show up. Bring your family downtown on December

6. Line the parade route. Make a donation. And keep talking to the young people in

your life.

When we lift our youth together, we honour those we’ve lost and help make sure fewer

families have to walk the same road.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker : Members, before we start question period, the Chair has a ruling on another point

of order.

Hon. Members, on Tuesday, November 25, the Minister of Finance raised a point of order

regarding remarks by the Fourth Party House Leader that she viewed to be unparliamentary.

The Chair thanks the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Fourth Party for their

submissions and is now prepared to rule on the point of order.

Words spoken in this chamber no doubt garner much attention and can shape broader

dialogue about the issues of the day. This is a place of debate, where members must

be able to exchange views and ideas passionately and fiercely, and the Chair firmly

believes that can be done in a respectful manner.

As noted in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fifth edition, at page 151: “The codification of unparliamentary language is impractical,

as the Speaker must consider the context in which the words were spoken — that is,

the person to whom the words were directed, the degree of provocation and whether

or not the remarks created disorder in the House.”

If a member believes that unparliamentary language was used, I invite them to rise

on a point of order at the appropriate time to bring the infraction to the attention

of the Chair so that it may be assessed on these criteria.

In the case of submissions by the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Fourth

Party on the point of order raised yesterday, arguments offered amounted to debate,

as they introduced various opinions unrelated to a breach of decorum. The perceived

infractions could have been simply stated with the request that the Chair determine

whether language used was unparliamentary.

As the Chair has stated many times before, the role of the Chair is limited to upholding

the rules that govern the conduct of parliamentary proceedings and to assessing whether

they have been breached. To preserve the impartiality of the office the Chair holds,

it is inappropriate to intervene in disputes between members that, to put it in simple

terms, amount to tit-for-tat submissions to the Chair.

The Chair implores all members to conduct and hold themselves to a standard that befits

the high public office that they hold.

Oral Questions

Cowichan Tribes Land Title

Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad : Because of the Cowichan court ruling, I think we’ve seen something unprecedented

in British Columbia, which is a new class action lawsuit that is actually being brought

forward against the province and the federal government by property owners because

the governments “failed to properly defend the rights of property owners.”

[2:35 p.m.]

Furthermore, it alleges that governments misled property owners by claiming their

land was safe, marketable and free from material qualifications, when these governments

knew that wasn’t true.

A simple question through to the Premier. Does every private property owner in the

province have to go forward and join this class action suit to get this government

to finally protect private property rights in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to start by being perfectly clear to those that are listening at home. Land

titles across British Columbia and Richmond are valid. It is simply inaccurate to

suggest otherwise. People own their properties, regardless of where it is located

in the province.

I’ve talked many times, in this debate, of the province’s strong stand in protecting

the private property rights of those individuals during this Cowichan claim. We’ve

canvassed many times the steps we’ve taken as a government to stand up for the uncertainty

that was created by the decision that we strongly disagree with, and we’ll continue

to do so.

In contrast, what we’ve had from the other side is confusion, mixed messaging, sending

fundraising emails over this issue to try to earn money for their political party.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, order.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’ve had the opposition leader say mixed things, both to get maybe fundraising emails

from their political party and to the news.

Recently, when asked about what he was hearing from Indigenous leaders, the opposition

leader said:

“They know

section 35 rights exist. They’ve been fighting all their lives, fighting

for 170 years, 160 years for their land to be returned to them. That’s what they would

like to see. The question becomes: how do we do that as part of reconciliation?

“Our approach has always been to talk about what I call economic reconciliation, because

yes, lands need to be returned. But we can do it in a way that is achieving a goal

that is different than just land. We’ve got to get to this place where Indigenous

people are fully engaged and prosperous, and returning land is going to be part of

that, to be able to unlock that potential.”

What he says between what we hear in this House often, with the misinformation and

fearmongering, and what he says in the media is all mixed and complicated.

We are going to stay focused on the issues that matter to British Columbians to resolve

issues that we know are complicated and stand with both the Indigenous people of this

province and the private property owners of Richmond.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental?

John Rustad : Sure, Mr. Speaker.

I do find it entertaining that the minister seems to be completely dismissive of the

concerns of landowners. So let’s read something else from this lawsuit. It says that

the landowners suffered economic and psychological harm and that the government conduct

was unlawful and contrary to their duties of good faith and candour.

This is pretty straightforward. The city of Richmond has been very clear in saying

that the province did not argue to protect private property rights. The landowners

are now saying very clearly that the province did not argue to protect private property

rights. Even the judge made the case that the province did not stand up and argue

to protect private property rights.

Perhaps a simpler question. Why does this Premier think that everybody else is wrong

and that he’s right?

Hon. Niki Sharma : What the opposition leader just said is simply not true. I invite him to read the

800 pages of that decision where it lays out what the province’s arguments were, what

we said about upholding our Land Titles Act and defending the property rights of individuals

in this province. I invite him to read that, because I think he would come to a different

conclusion if he did.

What we won’t do is send….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Niki Sharma : What we won’t do and what is dismissive is to use this as a fundraising tactic for

their own political party, to use this as something to fearmonger across this province.

We’re going to be focused on the issues to resolve this matter…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members will come to order. Members will be quiet.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …and not participate in what the other side is doing, which is just going to create

more chaos.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Speaker : Before the Chair takes the next question, I want to caution all members not to use

electronic devices during the question period.

Residential Tenancy Legislation and

Supportive Housing Safety Concerns

Peter Milobar : Well, supportive housing providers have been begging this government for quite some

time now to change the rental tenancy act rules so their units do not apply, because

they are not able to protect the vast majority of their tenants from violent tenants

and drug-dealing tenants.

In the summertime, the former minister committed to look at this and bring forward

changes by October. It is now almost December.

Question to the new Minister of Housing. Is the government still committed to removing

supportive housing units from the rental tenancy act, and if so, when can they expect

those changes?

Hon. Christine Boyle : This is important work for us as a government because we are working so closely with

communities and local governments all across this province to continue to build badly

needed supportive housing that improves safety for individuals and communities.

We set up a working group with supportive housing providers. We continue to be in

conversation and are working through details of how we address safety concerns in

these buildings for tenants and staff while continuing to support and protect tenant

rights and to continue to expand supportive housing in every community where it’s

needed, for the safety of all.

Members across the aisle have been spreading misinformation about supportive housing,

have been unsupportive of this badly needed housing in communities. That is greatly

concerning, because we know that the greater safety risks are when people are left

to….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Order, Members. Order.

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle : The greater risk to communities is when people are left to fend for themselves in

encampments or on the street. We will continue to work with providers, with communities

and with local governments on tangible solutions.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Peter Milobar : That answer right there very clearly demonstrates how this government tries to tell

stakeholders and other providers that they’re doing one thing, and their actions are

the complete opposite.

I wouldn’t want to be accused of spreading misinformation, so I’m going to read directly

from appendix E, the minimum requirements checklist for the negotiated request for

proposals of supportive housing–operated services in Kamloops, B.C., an addendum that

is now part of B.C. Housing, housing packages for supportive housing.

It says: “Please note. Only organizations who agree to the following requirements

for supportive housing operations will be considered for this site.” This has been

launched recently by this government.

Let’s look at a few things you have to agree to. “Will residents be allowed to use

substances on site at this site, yes or no?” If you say no, you’re out. “Do you agree

to operate this model under the minimal-barrier harm reduction model, yes or no?”

Has to be a yes, or you’re out.

Now, that creates the environment for drug dealers to move in, and the rental tenancy

act is why it needs to be changed.

Let’s look at the last….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Peter Milobar : Let’s look at another clause: “Do you understand that residents of permanent supportive

housing are entitled to the tenancy protections outlined for permanent supportive

housing in the B.C. Residential Tenancy Act and regulations?”

It doesn’t sound like a government trying…

The Speaker : Question.

Peter Milobar : …to remove this from supportive housing operators.

Why is the minister doing one thing out in the real world and saying something completely

different in this House?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Thank you, Members. Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I will reiterate that we’re working closely with supportive housing providers to

understand the challenges that are being faced. We know that there are housing providers

that are facing greater challenge due to a higher level of mental health needs, brain

injury and more.

We’re working alongside those providers…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, let the minister answer, please. Be quiet.

Please continue.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : …to ensure success in this housing for the residents and tenants in these houses,

as well as staff and communities. We want to make sure that our vulnerable neighbours

have a safe place to call home, to rest their heads.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, let’s be courteous to each other.

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle : We want to make sure that our most vulnerable neighbours have a safe place to call

home and to connect with health services, addiction supports, mental health supports

and more that will help them get back on their feet and recover.

We know that is what makes a difference for individuals and communities, and we’ll

continue that work.

Government Action on Homelessness

Rob Botterell : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, when I seek to get answers from the other side

of the House, I don’t seek to create chaos based on unread decisions. I read the Cowichan

decision. My question is focused on getting answers to questions that are important,

that don’t foster chaos but foster a sense of collaboration and solutions.

On December 6, the mayor of Sidney has been invited to spend the night in the winter

cold alongside advocates from St. Andrew Anglican Church, Greater Victoria Acting

Together and Homes for Living.

Earlier this year the Sidney council voted against installing an extreme weather shelter

in the community. Part of the problem is the province’s ad hoc approach to shelter,

which often forces municipalities to reopen what is a difficult debate on shelter

locations every year. In Sidney, we need rapid response in addition to systemic change.

My question is to the Minister of Housing. Are you ready to provide rapid wraparound

housing and support to the unhoused community in Sidney if the mayor and council reverse

their decision?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I want to thank the member opposite, both for the question and his advocacy on this….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I want to thank the member opposite for his advocacy on this front and for vulnerable

and homeless populations.

Absolutely, we are ready to work with local governments who want to work with us on

solutions, particularly where there are good solutions on the table. There are local

governments all over this province who have been excellent partners in making land

or spaces available, in reaching out to the province proactively to find good solutions.

I’m incredibly grateful for the level of leadership that we see from communities all

over this province in working alongside us, and we stand ready to continue to do that

work wherever we can.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : There’s a phrase sometimes used among social advocates: “Displacement equals death.”

Tragically, last week Cowichan exemplified the phrase.

On November 17, residents of an encampment were violently evicted. The next day Cowichan

saw a terrifying spike in drug poisonings. This isn’t a coincidence. When communities

are ruptured and people are separated from supports, people die.

Similar sweeps at the Abbotsford highway rest stop and communities across B.C. amount

to violence and exacerbate social disorder. Perhaps city police departments wouldn’t

have ballooning budgets if residents had access to dignified housing.

My question is to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. It is clear that

displacement solves nothing and causes great harm. As winter sets in, what other tools

will this government use to take care of its citizens?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks again to the member opposite for that question. We know that encampments are

not a safe, long-term option for residents. That’s why we’re working so strongly on

providing other options.

In North Cowichan and Duncan, B.C. Housing is currently funding 52 shelter spaces

for people experiencing homelessness. An additional temporary winter shelter with

24 beds is set to open any day now.

As well, the province and Duncan are partnering together on homeless and encampment

response temporary housing solutions, with a 34-unit tiny-home village that welcomes

people who are transitioning out of homelessness.

We know that these are the answers that provide good, long-term supports, and we’ll

continue to do that work.

[2:50 p.m.]

Government Spending Priorities

Dallas Brodie : Record deficits, record debt, stagnant wages, rising costs — and productive people

are fleeing our province. The B.C. Business Council reports that since 2019, public

administration has grown a massive 44 percent in this province. This is a staggering

number, and what have we gotten for it?

Health care has gotten worse. Schools are more crowded. Streets are terribly unsafe.

The Premier has maxed out the credit card on ideological wars on climate, race and

gender.

My question to the Premier is this. When will he put an end to this grotesque government

waste, fraud and abuse and let the public service actually fix what’s broken?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member for the question.

When this government came in, in 2017, there was an incredible deficit of services

that people in British Columbia needed — hospitals, schools, additional safety. We

have been building that infrastructure.

At the same time, it is true that economic conditions have been very challenging,

with the pandemic, what happened in terms of supply chain, interest rates and now

a trade war. We have faced serious economic challenges globally. It’s not unique to

B.C. It’s not unique to Canada.

In this context, we must be absolutely certain that every dollar we spend is supporting

British Columbians to the maximum possible. That is why we are doing the work to ensure

that every ministry is evaluating their programs. Our efficiency review is fully underway.

We’ve put in a hiring freeze. We’ve already seen 1,000 less public servants.

At the same time, we must protect the services that British Columbians rely on, and

we’ll do that.

The Speaker : Supplemental.

Dallas Brodie : With the Premier in charge, the only thing growing is government debt. The Fraser

Institute reported yesterday that our debt will increase by more than $80 billion

over the next four years. A jump from $115 billion in 2024 to $208 billion by 2028.

That’s just four years.

Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. Well, we’ve run out,

and the productive, hard-working people of this province are running out of B.C. Last

year 70,000 people left British Columbia, another sad record set by this government.

My question for the Premier is this. How many people need to flee British Columbia

before he reverses course and makes the necessary deep cuts to taxes and government

waste?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : While I thank the member for the question, I think I should clarify a few things.

We’ve added nearly 200,000 private sector jobs in British Columbia since 2017, over

27,000 private sector jobs just last year. We’re one of the leaders in the entire

country.

When the member gets up and spews misinformation, which is a daily occurrence, I think

it’s important for us to correct.

Now, the member also gets up in the House and says people are fleeing. The next day

she says: “There are too many people. Let’s get rid of all the immigrants. There are

too many immigrants.”

This member needs to clarify, I think, what their position is. Do they want more people?

Do we want to be able to attract the best talent in the world, to be able to support

innovation, to support our companies, to support our economy and our communities,

or do they not want those people? It’s not entirely clear to me, given their changing

position day to day.

Post-Secondary Tuition Policy

Gavin Dew : With so many student leaders on the precinct today, I’m reminded of my own time in

student government at UBC.

The 1990s NDP froze tuition, for politics, but their failure to fund the freeze brought

the system to its knees and led to sharp hikes when the freeze came off.

[2:55 p.m.]

Student leaders, myself included, pushed for the 2005 tuition limit policy, which

capped domestic tuition increases at 2 percent and gave students 20 years of predictability

across multiple governments.

When will the Premier release Don Wright’s buried public post-secondary funding formula

review, and will he give students certainty today and commit to maintain the 2 percent

cap on domestic tuition increases?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Thank you to the member for the question.

We know that right now our public post-secondary sector is struggling. We are seeing

significant revenue losses, and they’re still coming off the impacts of COVID and

what they had to deal with then. We’re seeing declining domestic enrolment. We’re

seeing global inflation that is not affecting just B.C. but our country and across

the world right now.

This has been significantly exacerbated by the federal government’s unilateral cuts

to international student visas. By cutting these student visas by 70 percent without

speaking to provinces about what their needs are and without allowing institutions

to prepare for these effects, it’s having significant impacts, where almost all of

our public post-secondary institutions are facing significant pressures and declining

revenues.

This is why our government has instituted a holistic review of the public post-secondary

sector, which we announced yesterday, to ensure that every dollar that is in the sector

is going to ensure accessible and affordable post-secondary education for students.

Whether you live in the Lower Mainland, on the Island or in the Interior, wherever

you are in the province, you need to have access to education. That is what this review

will do.

This is going to ensure that we are dealing with the circumstances that are today’s.

What happened two years ago or three years ago is not where we are today. We do not

see the 70 percent cuts….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Please conclude.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : It’s a different situation. At the end of the day, this review is necessary in order

to know how we move forward, holistically look at the sector and ensure the long-term

sustainability of the sector in a way that will keep education in B.C. a top-quality

education while ensuring that our public post-secondary institutions have the support

they need and that students are getting an affordable education.

Emergency Health Care Services

in Tumbler Ridge

Larry Neufeld : Last week I spoke of how several prominent members of Tumbler Ridge nearly died while

the ER was closed. The minister attributes the ER closure to recruitment efforts,

while Northern Health told residents that ER closures were good for them.

The mayor is in this House today. Will the minister stand up and guarantee that his

residents won’t have to go through the same thing under this NDP’s crumbling health

care system?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

I’m really glad that the mayor of Tumbler Ridge is here in the House today, and I

welcome him. I look forward to meeting with him tomorrow for the ongoing discussions

about what’s taking place in Tumbler Ridge.

It is really difficult for residents. This change has been very unsettling. People

have very deep opinions. But the positive side of this is that people are coming to

the table. I know that Northern Health continues to work with the MLA, with the mayor

and with the community to do everything possible to help address the workforce challenges

that Tumbler Ridge and too many communities across B.C. are facing.

That’s why we have to continue our efforts to attract more physicians and nurses into

British Columbia. That’s why we’ve reached out into the U.S. to ask physicians, nurses

and allied health professionals to come practise here in our public universal health

care system, where they are welcomed. And they are coming.

We also have to plan for the future. That means expanding the UBC medical school,

which we’ve done. It means building a new medical school at SFU, which we are doing

and which the Leader of the Opposition turned down at a time when we might not have

been in quite the same situation that we are today.

My commitment to the mayor of Tumbler Ridge and to the communities across this province

that are facing these shortages is to continue to do everything that we can to build

the workforce that we need to deliver health care for British Columbians when they

need it and where they need it.

Closing of Forest Industry Mills

and Production Facilities

Ward Stamer : Yesterday the Forests Minister stood in this House and claimed that his government

is building a strong, prosperous forest sector. When?

[3:00 p.m.]

The people of 100 Mile heard those similar words the very same day their major employer,

West Fraser, shut its doors, wiping out 500 jobs. Families, contractors and whole

communities are now wondering how they’re supposed to survive.

Regardless of the never-ending reviews and task forces, when will this Forests Minister

take some responsibility and not just keep blaming the Americans and everyone else

and admit that it’s his government’s policies that have put more and more people out

of work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Firstly, I want to take the opportunity to speak directly to the people of 100 Mile.

This is devastating news, to lose that sawmill when West Fraser made the announcement

about that closure. Devastating news for those workers, over 165 unionized workers,

but also for that town. A major employer, the direct and indirect impact.

I’ve been in conversation with the mayor of 100 Mile. I’ve spoken to Brian O’Rourke,

the union president. We’ve said to them very clearly, as has the Premier, that we’re

going to be there with them during this very challenging time.

Now, the members opposite really do have trouble right now with understanding what’s

going on in forestry. We have….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Please complete.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Members opposite haven’t realized we’re in a trade war right now. We have 45 percent

duties and tariffs….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, the minister has the floor. Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : We have 45 percent duties and tariffs on our softwood lumber. There are more duties

and tariffs on British Columbian lumber heading down south than on Russian lumber.

Now, there’s a lot of spunk from the opposition today, a lot of spunk in their….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, please.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : There’s a lot of spunk from the opposition today. I’m not sure where that’s coming

from. Maybe they had a really good caucus meeting last night or today. But I wish

they’d use that same energy, that same spunk, to join us on this side of the House

in fighting for our forestry workers.

The Premier of our province led the fight to Ottawa and delivered literally billions

of dollars in funding to help protect forestry workers. On this side of the House….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : On this side of the House, our message is clear. We’re going to fight like hell for

forestry workers. That’s our record. We are pleased that Ottawa is joining us on that

effort, and we’re going to continue that effort in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Lorne Doerkson : That’s devastating to hear that answer.

Last week the West Fraser mill in 100 Mile closed. We lost hundreds of jobs. That’ll

have ripple effects through the entire region. This morning Drax announced a permanent

closure of its pellet plant in Williams Lake. Devastating blows to our region.

Both companies pointing to the same crisis. No fibre, no by-product, nothing to run

on, because this government’s policies and curtailments in other operations have choked

the entire supply chain.

We’ve raised solutions here. We’ve brought them to this House, we’ve shared those

with the minister, and still nothing. This is a full-blown crisis — full stop.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Lorne Doerkson : Hundreds of people in Cariboo-Chilcotin are going to be out of work by Christmas.

When will this government stop the rhetoric that we just heard and treat this like

the emergency it really is?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, it sounds like a music festival.

Interjections.

[3:05 p.m.]

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members. The question was asked. A serious question was asked. Let’s

hear the answer from the minister.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is going through a really challenging time with significant news

coming out of 100 Mile, and also….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Please continue.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : We’re talking about people’s livelihoods. The members opposite can heckle all they

want. I would appreciate the opportunity to talk about the work that we’re doing and

also provide my sympathy to the people of 100 Mile and Williams Lake.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Really disappointing that they would take this tone, but not surprising.

The Speaker : Members, please. Let’s….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, enough.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I want to quote from West Fraser’s media release made on November 6, 2025: “The 100

Mile House lumber mill is no longer able to reliably access an adequate volume of

economically viable timber. Challenging softwood lumber demand, higher duties and

additional tariffs have compounded the situation.”

Duties and tariffs….

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The member opposite says: “Read the first line.” The member opposite maybe hasn’t

been up to the Cariboo in a while, but devastating wildfires have impacted the land

base there.

West Fraser, in the year 2025, submitted seven permits for harvesting. All seven were

approved. In my conversations with West Fraser, it was very clear that duties and

tariffs compounded the situation that led to the closure of that facility.

In the case of Drax and the facility in Williams Lake — I encourage the members opposite

to go and read the release — they were unsuccessful in securing a contract that another

proponent, Atlantic Power, received. That made a huge factor in their decision to

curtail and close their operations. My deputy minister will be speaking to Drax shortly,

this afternoon. I look forward to the conversation as well.

We on this side of the House recognize the challenge that we are facing in forestry,

but we also recognize the opportunity to ensure that no worker in British Columbia

and Canada is ever put in this position again. It’s why the Premier has been leading

the national fight for forestry, and that fight has been successful in literally securing

$1 billion from the Prime Minister today in supports for our forestry workers.

We have more work to do to transform this sector to ensure that no worker is ever

put in this position ever again.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Á’a :líya Warbus : I rise today on a point of order regarding standing orders, “Oral Questions,” subsection

47A(b), which states: “Questions and answers shall be brief and precise and stated

without argument or opinion.”

As I have carefully taken note for our question periods during this entire session,

questions on this side that are 30 seconds are often mirrored and reflected by triple

the answer, often going into scripts and rants and tirades that are not related to

the question at all.

I would like a ruling in regard to how that is going to be handled. For example, three

times today, before the heckling started, we had double the size answer of the question

consistently. I’ve had my team clock these things as well, and I can show you all

of those statistics for the entire session.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the comments from my colleague across the way. I would remind the Speaker

that question period in this chamber has been characterized by just as long questions

on many occasions by the opposition and, often, by short answers on this side. It

happens on both sides of the House.

I know the Speaker does….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Thank you for making my point there, Member, in terms of the heckling.

I know the Speaker does keep a record in terms of the time that each side takes. I

know that you review that on a daily basis, so I would trust your judgment in the

actual records that I know the Speaker — not just you but previous Speakers before

you — has always kept in this chamber.

The Speaker : Thank you, Members. The Chair will take this under advisement and get back.

Steve Kooner : I have a petition to present. Can I seek leave to present the petition?

The Speaker : You don’t need leave. Just proceed.

[3:10 p.m.]

Petitions

Steve Kooner : The petition is from over 1,000 signatories from Queensborough, New Westminster,

and the surrounding area.

There is currently a school bus service from Queensborough to New Westminster Secondary

School. That school bus service is coming to an end in June 2026, and the petitioners

are calling on the Legislative Assembly and this provincial government to make the

school bus service from Queensborough to New Westminster Secondary School permanent.

There was a campaign promise by the government in 2024 that stated that….

The Speaker : Thank you, Member. Your petition is accepted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Christine Boyle : I have the honour to present the 2024-2025 annual report of the Islands Trust.

This fulfils the trust’s statutory obligation to prepare an annual report that includes

a

summary of Trust Council, executive committee and local trust committees’ operations,

along with an annual report of the Islands Trust Conservancy and audited financial

statements.

The annual report outlines the diversity of work the Islands Trust and the Islands

Trust Conservancy undertook over the past year to support communities, safeguard sensitive

ecosystems and manage development in this special area of British Columbia. They have

done great work.

I’m going to shorten it because we have taken a long time today. But as I was able

to welcome them, I want to thank Chair Laura Patrick and CAO Rueben Bronee for the

good work that they and their teams have done on this report and their public service

year-round.

Reports from Committees

Special Committee on

Democratic and Electoral Reform

Jennifer Blatherwick : I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Democratic

and Electoral Reform for the first session of the 43rd parliament, titled Toward a Stronger Democracy in B.C.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick : I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick : I move the report be adopted, and, in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

This report relates to the first part of the committee’s mandate and examines topics

associated with democratic engagement, voter participation and models for electing

members of the Legislative Assembly.

To inform our work, the committee held public hearings across the province and virtually

and received written submissions over the summer. In total, we received input from

987 participants, including 186 presentations and 801 stand-alone written submissions,

covering a range of opportunities to improve our democracy.

On behalf of all the committee members, I would like to sincerely thank the individuals

and organizations who took the time to engage with the committee and share their ideas,

experiences and perspectives.

Following the consultation period, our committee considered all the input to develop

our 36 recommendations. These recommendations aim to strengthen B.C.’s democracy by

supporting British Columbians’ participation and engagement, examining the efficacy

of legislation and policy and enhancing the responsibilities of and resources for

Elections B.C., political parties and MLAs.

The committee also recognized the significant level of input received during our presentations

regarding electoral reform, while also acknowledging the need to have further conversations

with British Columbians on this topic to ensure there is support and trust in any

political changes. As such, the committee recommends considering establishing a people’s

assembly to examine and make recommendations in consultation with experts on the model

for electing Members of the Legislative Assembly.

In the course of our deliberations, our committee had wide-ranging discussions on

what we heard. While the committee members shared varied perspectives on different

issues, we are in strong agreement that democracy is a living system that requires

ongoing work and investment to ensure its health and resiliency.

I would like to sincerely thank all of the committee members for the debate and dialogue

we had throughout our deliberations and for their dedication and engagement in this

work.

I would particularly like to thank and recognize the support of the Deputy Chair,

the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would also like to express my appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary Committees

Office who supported our work, including Karan Riarh, Katey Stickle, Mary Heeg, Jared

Brown, Aza Bryson, Jonathon Hamilton, Hanna Kim, Danielle Migeon, Alexa Neufeld, Emily

Andrews and Kayla Wilson.

Thank you, as well, to the staff in Hansard Services for their assistance with our

work.

Ward Stamer : I, too, would like to extend my gratitude to our committee members — including the

Chair, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville — for their work, diligence and for

the extensive discussions we had on this part of our work in the last several months.

I’d also like to recognize everyone who took the time to provide input to this committee.

We sincerely appreciate hearing from people across B.C. about their experiences with

and perspectives in our democracy and the various institutions that support it and

how we can all work together to improve it.

In particular, throughout our work, we heard some of the challenges facing the province’s

democracy, and we’ve considered many ways to strengthen it. In particular, committee

members recognize that democratic participation is both a right and a civic duty and

that we all have an active role to play in the health of our democracy. To that end,

we highlight the need to strengthen civic education and enhance the information and

education provided to British Columbians.

The committee also identified opportunities to increase democratic engagement and

bolster voter participation. Additionally, we agreed that accountability and transparency

are fundamental democratic principles and that measures to reinforce these principles

are critical to maintaining a vibrant democracy.

Finally, I’d also like to thank the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and

Hansard who supported our work around the province.

Rob Botterell : I rise today to also speak in support of this report as a member proud of the work

we did together as a committee.

Thank you to my fellow committee members, to the staff who advised, coordinated and

researched and, especially, to the 987 people and groups who took the time to submit

to the committee. We are so fortunate to have access to so many experts and so many

British Columbians who took the time to share their knowledge, ideas, experiences

and perspectives on strengthening our democracy. I’m grateful to all of them for prioritizing

this important work in their lives.

In these times, democratic and electoral reform is some of the most important work

that this House can undertake. It speaks directly to how decisions are made, by whom

and with what supports. It impacts how our society is organized, how all perspectives

and interests of British Columbians are represented in this chamber and what we teach

our children about civic responsibility.

I’m so glad, therefore, that this report represents the efforts of all parties in

this House, that members from across this House have put aside their partisan interests,

which are very partisan at times, and looked directly at what’s best for the future

of the province.

I look forward to hearing of timely implementation of all the recommendations in this

report.

The Speaker : Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Kelly Greene : It’s my pleasure to be able to stand in the House to present the British Columbia

disaster climate risk and resilience assessment, in accordance with the Climate Change

Accountability Act, pursuant to

section 4.3 of the act.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I’m honoured to present the final report of the CleanBC independent review panel,

a review completed under the terms of the cooperation and responsible government accord

between our government and the B.C. Green caucus.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just sneaking in a tabling of a report. This is the Public Guardian and Trustee 2024-25

annual report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 29.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 32.

[3:20 p.m.]

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 29 — Child, Family and

Community Service

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Thank you, Members. I’m going to call a brief recess while we wait for the minister

and the team for continued committee stage.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Thank you, Members. We will call this committee back to order, where we are contemplating

Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act of 2025.

We are on clause 1. However, this afternoon we will start by discussing an amendment

that was brought forth by the member for Prince George–Valemount. That is: “Clause

1, by adding the underlined text: ‘guardian’ has the same meaning as in the Family

Law Act.”

On clause 1 (continued) .

On the amendment (continued) .

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I want to thank the member for the amendment, and I think I understand the spirit

in which it was brought forward. I do not support the amendment for a number of reasons.

The CFCSA definition of “guardianship” already includes guardian within the meaning

of the Family Law Act and further includes all of the rights, duties and responsibilities

of a parent. So a guardian is a person with guardianship.

The Family Law Act generally applies to relationships between private parties, while

the CFCSA applies to relationships between government and private parties, with its

focus being the protection of children.

The CFCSA establishes how a director or another person may receive guardianship in

child protection matters. The Family Law Act only establishes who is a guardian and

what guardianship entails within a family’s private sphere.

The CFCSA uses a broad definition of guardianship so that the law can work as intended.

If we change that definition, it would consequentially affect many other parts of

the act, which would ultimately impact how children’s needs are met. For example,

this definition amendment would likely alter sections of the CFCSA that address when

a director is made guardian of a child through a continuing custody order.

For those reasons, I do not support the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird : Okay. I appreciate the explanation, Minister.

The Chair : Members, we have a question before us then. It is the amendment to clause 1, “by

adding the underlined text as shown: ‘guardian’ has the same meaning as in the Family

Law Act.”

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[3:30 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird : The first

section of clause 3, 19.1. I would like to start with paragraph (2). It

reads: “A director may make a safety plan in accordance with this division.”

Yesterday you stated that a safety agreement or a safety plan is necessary and initiated

during any assessment or investigation period. The B.C. government news bulletin states

that these agreements mitigate safety concerns in a way that supports the children

or youth to remain safely with their parent or trusted adult, as arranged by their

parent, while awaiting the outcome of a child protection assessment or an investigation

or a decision on a court order.

To the minister, why does the language in this paragraph, “a director may make a safety

plan,” contradict what she stated safety plans were used for yesterday and in the

actual news bulletin that MCFD released to the public?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : The term “may” is used because a safety plan is just one tool available to directors

to use. Safety plans are not a “must” to be used by directors. They may be used as

one tool available to them in a situation.

Rosalyn Bird : I’d like to table an amendment on

section 19.1.

[ CLAUSE 3, in proposed

section 19.1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the underlined text as shown:

When safety plan agreement may be made

19. 1

(1) In this section, “assessment or investigation” means an assessment or investigation conducted under

section 16 (2) (b.1) or (c).

(2) A director may must make a safety plan agreement in accordance with this Division and the regulations,

if any, for the protection of a child’s health or safety in any of the following circumstances:

(

a) the director is conducting an assessment or investigation in relation to the child;

(

b) further to an assessment or investigation in relation to the child,

(

i) the director has applied under the Act for a court order that the director considers

adequate to protect that child,

(ii) the director has not withdrawn the application, and

(iii) the court has not made a decision with respect to the application.]

The Chair : Thank you, Member. We’ll get staff to pick up the amendment for clause 3, and we

will take a brief recess while we circulate that amendment to all members.

The committee recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Thank you, Members. We will call this chamber back to order.

We are discussing a motion this afternoon in amendment to clause 3,

section 19.1(2),

changing that a director “may” to “must” make a safety plan agreement “in accordance

with this Division and the regulations, if any, for the protection of a child’s health

or safety in any of the following circumstances.”

I would ask that the member for Prince George–Valemount explain her motion to the

House.

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird : It’s my feeling that as I stated, the bulletin actually explains what the safety

plans are for, as did the minister multiple times yesterday, saying that safety plans

were put in place when there was an order put forward, when there was an investigation

and an assessment and awaiting for decisions from the court.

I believe that the amendment does validate the word “must,” and I believe that the

language in the bulletin is actually misleading for parents without the change.

The Chair : The motion is in order, and I would call on the minister for her comments.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I thank the member for the amendment.

I do not support the amendment for a few reasons. The amendment would force a process

where every single situation is unique and different, and directors may need to use

more or less intrusive measures in any single situation. There are other tools also

available when there is a protection concern. Using the term “must” would also take

away the voluntary nature of safety plans.

For those reasons, I do not support the amendment.

Heather Maahs : The word “may” is very subjective and could be interpreted by different people in

different ways.

[3:40 p.m.]

I know from experience that a lot of things are not necessarily documented. I think

in this situation, it would force a path of documentation that would enable workers

to be able to follow the path that they’re on.

The Chair : Members, the question is an amendment to clause 3,

section 19.1(2), a director “may”

being changed to “must” make a safety plan agreement “in accordance with this Division

and the regulations, if any, for the protection of a child’s health or safety in any

of the following circumstances.”

You’ve heard the question, Members.

Division has been called.

[3:45 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Sturko

Boultbee

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Luck

Block

NAYS — 48

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Valeriote

Botterell

The Chair : We’ll take a quick recess, Members.

The committee recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Thank you, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order. We are on committee stage

of Bill 29, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025, where we are

contemplating clause 3.

Rosalyn Bird : I’d like to draw the attention of the minister to

section 19.2(1)(b), where it states:

“in the director’s opinion….” An opinion, by definition, is a judgment, viewpoint

or statement that is not conclusive or opposed to facts, which are true statements.

Would the minister please explain the definition of “in the director’s opinion.”

Hon. Jodie Wickens : The director takes their authority from the CFCSA. The CFCSA requires the director

to use their authority in ways that align with certain guiding and service principles

that are outlined in the act. These principles shape how the director makes decisions.

[4:00 p.m.]

The principles instruct the director to prioritize the safety of the child and also

to prioritize keeping families together and preserving cultural and family relationships.

They also tell the director to make and implement decisions about children in a timely

way.

The CFCSA empowers directors to make decisions as a part of their role. In this way,

they have discretion to make choices they feel will promote the policies and the objectives

of the act. This allows them to respond to the specific circumstances they are faced

with on the ground and in real time.

Every family and every situation is unique, and the CFCSA routinely asks directors

to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Rosalyn Bird : Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Under the act,

section 92, it also says that directors can delegate their powers:

“

(1) A director may delegate to any person or class of person any or all of the director’s

powers, duties or functions under this act.

(2) A delegation of the powers, duties

or functions of a director must be in writing and may include any terms or conditions

the director considers advisable.”

I’d like to ask about evidence-based practice. It’s a sequential, structured process

for integrating the best available evidence into making important decisions. The practitioner

applies the decision-making process by using the best available evidence while informed

by pragmatic perspective developed from working in the field, using critical thinking

skills, the best available evidence and an awareness of the interest of the party.

Though I appreciate what the minister says regarding the director specifically, as

the powers can be delegated down, my concern in regard to this is for front-line workers

and the decisions they’re making day to day.

Will the minister confirm whether ministry staff, particularly those working directly

with B.C. children, youth and families, are actually provided with evidence-based

practice training?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : The short answer is yes. There are a number of trainings that child protection workers

take, both within the first six months of probation and in an ongoing way. An example

would be training around structured decision-making and using that tool in individual

circumstances.

Rosalyn Bird : I’ll stick with my line of questioning here. That phrase, “in the director’s opinion,”

can present several challenges. Subjectivity — it still signals that the statement

is based on personal judgment rather than objective fact, which can weaken the authority

of formal documents. It’s ambiguous. If there are multiple directors, it’s unclear

whether this refers to one director or a board collectively. It can create interpretive

issues.

There’s also a legal risk with this statement. Contracts, governance documents…. Wordings

like this can affect obligations — meaning, does the director’s opinion trigger a

right or a duty? Is the opinion discretionary, or is it reasonable? Courts often scrutinize

such language because it can shift liability.

There’s also perceived bias within this statement. It may imply that decisions are

based on personal views, rather than established criteria, which can raise governance

concerns.

Considering these challenges, does the minister still consider “in the director’s

opinion” appropriate language inside the bill?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : A couple of things in relation to this question. I thank the member for the question.

First and foremost, all directors are bound by sections 2 and 3 of the act. All of

the guiding principles of the act — the safety and well-being of children, what’s

in the best interests of children — are all outlined in the very beginning of the

act.

We talked yesterday about all of the layers of oversight that exist within the ministry

and externally. I will also point out that we’re talking here about the director’s

opinion of persons that must be parties to a safety plan. To determine which parents

are necessary parties to a safety plan or which individuals are parties to a safety

plan agreement, the director must rely on information available at the time to assess

guardianship responsibilities and who may be party to a plan.

They have to make that decision with the information that they have in the moment.

Sometimes that could be in the middle of the night. Sometimes it may require some

time to gather more information. That is why the language around each parent who,

in the director’s opinion, meets all of the following criteria is important for this

section of the bill.

Rosalyn Bird : The criteria in

section 19.2(1)(

b) are actually quite specific. Can the minister

provide an explanation or an example of when or how a parent, in the director’s opinion,

would not meet the criteria listed, as it’s extremely specific?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I believe I understood the question, so I’m going to attempt to answer it for the

member.

There are situations that arise, individual situations, where the director must make

a decision based on the circumstance. A director may arrive on scene where there is

a child with adults present, and maybe one of the parents can’t be located. That is

one example.

Another example could be that a director arrived at a home, at any point in time,

and the parent that is there is intoxicated. In the director’s opinion, the parent

would not be able or willing to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a parent

with custody.

Those are a couple of examples. We can provide some more as well.

Rosalyn Bird : Thank you, Minister.

I accept your answer for that, although, if I’m not mistaken, you don’t have to have

both parents participate in a safety plan, so in the circumstances that you’re referring

to, if all of those criteria were met, that still raises the question, in my opinion.

You mentioned that a parent can’t be located. So section (1)(b)(iii), I actually have

a question about that — in the opinion of the director, if a parent “can be located.”

Does the minister have any protocols or guidelines for what is a locatable parent,

and what kind of threshold for inaccessible or unlocated does a parent have to be

for this clause to be in effect?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I think it’s a helpful question from the member opposite.

Steps that a protection worker must take in order to locate a parent will be outlined

in policy and practice — a number of steps outlined for protection workers.

Also, just to remind the member, safety plans are living documents. They can be adjusted

so that when a protection worker is making efforts to locate a parent — let’s say

they located a parent the next day — that safety plan can be adjusted with the inclusion

of that other parent.

Rosalyn Bird : I appreciate that answer, and this is one of the reasons that we’re examining, or

I’m asking more questions about, the criteria.

[4:15 p.m.]

My understanding is that in accordance with chapters 3, 3.2 and 3.3, depending on

the circumstance for the safety plan, it has to be documented within 24 hours. So

there is, actually, a substantial, although it may not seem like a substantial…. Twenty-four

hours can be very long here, maybe not in other places.

However, as you stated, there is time. Again, I have a serious issue in and around

the language, due to the fact that there is a 24-hour period where these things can

be addressed. Even the example that you gave, which I’m assuming is for…. If somebody

was on site or shows up to assess a complaint that has come in, and you’re correct….

You have a parent that is intoxicated. I would hope that we aren’t going to have an

intoxicated parent sign a safety plan, anyway.

Again, to me, these criteria are quite specific, so I have huge concern with the wording,

instead of it not saying something more around evidence-based decision-making.

Do you know, off the top of your head…? I cannot find it in

chapter 3. I actually

looked for it. However, there are regulations that I can’t locate because they’re

on the internet. Can you tell me what the time frame is to find a parent? Is it six

hours? Is it eight hours? Is it the 24 hours that you actually have to document that

safety plan?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : There is no set time frame to need to locate a parent. That is a part of an ongoing

process that a child protection worker would take to try to uncover the whole picture

of a child’s situation.

The 24 hours is the amount of time required to obtain written confirmation. So if

an agreement is made, like I said, in the middle of the night or in extenuating circumstances,

there’s written confirmation that is needed within the 24 hours, but the location

of a parent would be an ongoing piece of work that a direct service staff would have

to do in their holistic approach to working with a child and a family to understand

the entire picture of everything that’s going on.

Heather Maahs : Obviously, opinions have to be justified. And a paper trail, obviously, is a good

way to justify these opinions.

[4:20 p.m.]

If we have a situation where, in the director’s opinion, a parent is given custody

of their child, but they’ve broken a safety plan twice, how do we ascertain how that

director then provides the information that is pertinent to the situation, any situation

where…?

It’s a fast-moving situation, obviously. But how is that opinion justified, for all

intents and purposes?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Again, safety planning is just one tool that is available to protection workers that

is also subject always to the guiding principles of the act. The guiding principles

of the act are paramount.

Then, in addition to that, safety plans are standardized forms. They are uploaded

into case files. They include the reason for the safety plan, the goals of the safety

plan, protective actions, commitments. If the safety plan changes or situations change

or a parent isn’t able to follow a safety plan or doesn’t agree with the safety plan,

there is case planning that occurs, and there are other tools that protection workers

can take.

It might include involving the courts. It might include more rigorous family planning.

It is individual and based on each individual case.

Heather Maahs : Perhaps I didn’t really make myself clear in my question. I was asking about documentation

justifying the opinion so that whoever is involved in this case has an opinion in

front of them that they can actually count on to be justified through the documentation.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : We put all documentation into our integrated case management system.

Jeremy Valeriote : If I understand correctly, this legislation authorizes scenarios where a parent with

custodial rights and responsibilities could be cut out from the safety planning process.

We’re concerned about the possibility of a parent being cut out because they’re not

viewed as “able and willing,” under subsection (iv), to exercise their custodial rights

and responsibilities. MCFD workers already hold so much power over parents, and this

is a subjective determination.

I have three questions I’ll ask all at the same time. I think they’re related to one

another. First, how will “able and willing” be determined? Second, will there be judicial

oversight in this determination? And third, if a party is determined to not fit this

criteria, what recourse mechanisms are in place?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Thank you to the member for the question. I think it’s a really good one, and I hope

that I will answer all aspects of it.

First and foremost, the starting place for protection workers is that all parents

are willing and able, so the threshold to determine that a parent is not willing and

able is quite limited. I gave an example before, where a parent may be intoxicated.

Those interactions are guided by clinical judgment and are subject to practice reviews;

are subject to, as I mentioned yesterday, our external oversight bodies; and would

be subject to judicial oversight as well.

I think that answers the question.

Jeremy Valeriote : Thank you, Minister.

I got two out of three. If a parent is determined not to fit the able and willing

criteria, is there a recourse mechanism beyond the judicial oversight, as mentioned?

[4:30 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Yes. There is recourse, a couple of different things. The parent can go through the

complaints process, which would include a couple of different options: complaining

to the team leader, director of operations, executive director of service or our ministry

complaints line. It could also be subject to an administrative review.

Also, just to emphasize that it is a living document. So in the example that I gave,

where potentially a parent is intoxicated, the protection worker would be able to

go back the next day or at a suitable time for the parent to be a party to the safety

plan.

Rosalyn Bird : I need to understand this process a little better so that this is more clear to me.

Safety plans are in two sections of the regulations, 3.2, which is where kids are

not…. There’s no egregious thing happening immediately. Then under the investigation

part is when it’s obvious that there’s severe physical abuse or severe neglect.

If we go back to 3.2, where somebody reports…. I’m trying to figure out what the timeline

is when somebody responds to a complaint or a report that doesn’t have severe physical

abuse or severe neglect. Based on what you’ve said here, you instigate or a worker

within your ministry actually initiates a safety plan immediately, as soon as they….

Okay, you’re nodding. That’s what I’m trying to get clarification on: how that process

works and what that timeline is.

In the example that you give, if a parent is intoxicated, I would assume that at some

point within the next 24 hours, the ministry would return to the house and there would

be an assessment made and the children would be also questioned. I’m trying to figure

out what this timeline looks like.

Like I said, if you show up at a house and you say, “Okay, there’s nothing major going

on here right now,” obviously, that safety plan is not initiated immediately. How,

in that circumstance, could this criteria not be made when somebody is coming back?

It doesn’t have to involve both parents either.

I’m trying to understand this process better so that I can follow what it is that

you’re trying to achieve with this particular piece of the legislation.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Just a couple of things for the member.

I want to clarify that

chapter 3 is policy, not regulation. That’s really important

to clarify. Also, in 19.1, this clause really outlines when a safety plan agreement

may be made. It says:

“A director may make a safety plan agreement in accordance with this division and

regulations, if any, for the protection of a child’s health or safety in any of the

following circumstances:

“The director is conducting an assessment or an investigation in relation to the child.

Further to an assessment or investigation in relation to the child, the director has

applied for, under the act, a court order that the director considers adequate to

protect that child. The director has not withdrawn the application, and the court

has not made a decision with respect to the application.”

I also just want to provide the members with the list of least intrusive measures

that protection workers may make. We know that removal of a child from their home

and from the care of their parents is highly disruptive. Unless a child’s or youth’s

health or safety is in immediate danger, the director must look at all available options

to protect the child that are least disruptive.

Aside from safety plans, some of the other options include informal or formal support

services; a court order authorizing necessary health care; taking charge of an unintended

lost or runaway child for up to 72 hours while efforts are made to locate or notify

the child’s safety; a protective intervention order, which may prohibit an individual

from contacting, interfering with or residing with the child; an arrangement for the

child or youth to live with an extended family or another individual who has a significant

relationship with the child or youth, through an extended family plan agreement; an

agreement with the parents for the child or youth to live under the care of a director

through a voluntary care or special needs agreement or a youth agreement, potentially.

Safety planning has least disruptive measures available through policy. With the legislative

changes, there will be clear and statutory authority and legislative safeguards to

support the use of safety planning as a least disruptive measure.

Rosalyn Bird : I appreciate the answer from the minister.

You named off quite a number of options there, and I understand that there is an escalating

continuum that can be used, depending on the circumstances.

However, I’m asking the questions because we’re supposed to be examining the bill

together to make sure this is the correct way to go. Even in the circumstances that

you just described, I would certainly hope that every effort would be made that the

parties of the agreement actually do meet these criteria and that it’s not just an

opinion of somebody that is validated.

That being said, I will move on to another question. Is there any recourse for a parent

or a guardian to request a second opinion if the director doesn’t think that a parent

does meet the criteria that are set out here?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I have answered this question a number of times with respect to the options that

parents have to disagree with an opinion through a comprehensive complaints process.

Parents also have the ability to obtain independent legal opinion.

Rosalyn Bird : I just wanted a clarifying question on what you just stated. If a parent does want

to initiate a complaint process or something similar to that, does that put the safety

plan on hold, or does it continue forward?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : A couple of things. Every director is empowered under the act with the guiding principles

and the service delivery principles. If there is a disagreement about content of the

safety plan, then there are a number of tools, as I outlined earlier, that directors

can use that are not the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird : I’d like to draw the minister’s attention to paragraph (1)(b)(i): “A parent is apparently

entitled to custody.”

“Apparently” is an adverb. It is used to indicate that something seems true based

on what you’ve heard, observed or understood, though it’s not completely certain.

Does the minister have a different definition for the word “apparently”?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : It’s a good question. A parent apparently entitled to custody is a parent that apparently

at least has the rights, duties and responsibilities of a parent described in the

Family Law Act. They also have at least some parenting time where they have physical

care and control of the child. The CFCSA already uses the term “parent apparently

entitled to custody” in other circumstances, so it’s a familiar concept for protection

workers.

To protect a child and act quickly to put a safety plan in place when needed, a director

must be able to make an agreement with each parent who, by court order or by the apparent

fact or reality, is a parent with guardianship, which includes parental responsibilities

and some parenting time with the child.

The director, at first instance, may not have access to undisputed proof about parental

rights, such as family law court orders, before taking steps to protect the child’s

safety. Where a director considers it is apparent that a parent is a guardian of the

child with parental responsibilities and at least some of the parenting time, the

parent will presumably be entitled to custody, and they will be a necessary party

to any safety plan respecting the child.

[4:45 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird : That’s actually concerning to me, the information you just provided. The word “apparently”

It can be used when something has been told or read and you’re not sure if it’s true.

“Apparently, he’s the father.” It can have contradicting expectations when it’s used

in reality differing from what you thought. “She looks like the mother, but apparently,

she’s the girlfriend.” It could be seemingly a truth, used when something appears

to be true though it may not be. “Apparently, it’s a happy marriage.”

With all due respect to the minister, and I mean that quite literally, whether a parent

is or is not entitled to the custody of a child, it shouldn’t be uncertain or seem

to be true. It should be apparent and documented.

To the minister: do you still consider the language “apparently” appropriate?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Yes, I do agree with the language in the bill.

Rosalyn Bird : I have one last question about paragraph (1). Current policy under

chapter 3 indicates

that when there are age-appropriate children involved in the FDR process, the ministry

is to seek input from children and youth.

Will the minister provide an explanation as to why age-appropriate youth are not actually

being included when they are determining a safety plan? It’s not listed under “parties

to the safety plan” in the bill.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : First and foremost, again, I go back to the guiding principles of the act. In the

guiding principles of the act, it states that the child’s views should be taken into

account when decisions relating to a child are made. These situations are incredibly

complex and involve a lot of competing information and a lot of situations where judgment

needs to be made about what is in the best interests of the child as well.

Always the act establishes that the safety and well-being of a child are paramount

considerations for a director. The interplay of these principles factors into how

a child’s views may be incorporated into a safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird : Paragraph (2) is talking about children that don’t have parents. In this section,

is the area of the bill…. During clause 1, I was referring to a proposed amendment.

In the Family Law Act, 53 says the guardian may appoint a person to be a child’s guardian

on death.

[4:50 p.m.]

In para 2, is it correct to assume that “in the director’s opinion” means that the

director has the authority to determine, based on personal judgment rather than objective

fact, who is considered to be a parent and who should be party to a safety agreement?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : If the question is about the word “opinion,” I have answered that question. However,

if it’s about who is a necessary party to a safety plan, then when we determine which

parents must be a party to a safety plan agreement, the director needs to use information

available at the time to assess the potential impact on the parents’ responsibilities

as outlined in

section 41 of the Family Law Act.

If a family law order or agreement specifying parents’ arrangements is readily available,

the director may be able to make a clear assessment that proposed safety plan agreement

and would not require their involvement to proceed with a safety plan agreement. If

such an order or agreement is not available to the director, it may be less clear.

The same is the case for circumstances where the parents have informal parenting arrangements.

In this case,

section 40 of the Family Law Act likely applies, which authorizes each

child’s guardian to exercise all parental responsibilities with respect to the child.

If the director has uncertainty with respect to the impact on Family Law Act parental

responsibilities, they may err on the side of caution to seek to include all parents

who meet necessary party criteria set out in the legislation.

If new information becomes available respecting who should or could have been a party

to the agreement, the legislation authorizes the director to withdraw from the safety

plan agreement on that basis. The director could then look to enter into a new safety

plan agreement with the appropriate necessary parties moving forward.

Rosalyn Bird : We may cover it. Just excuse me if you want to….

If it’s a child that is, let’s say, mid-teens, and they have no parents…. It’s more

of a curiosity question, really.

If there’s a safety plan that is required because they’re living with a friend or

they’re not living with somebody that’s designated as a parent…. Is that possible?

Are you allowed to have safety plans with young adults that don’t actually have any

living biological relatives?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : If there was a situation where a youth, a teenager, a young person had someone in

their life who was in a guardian role, we would plan with that person.

[4:55 p.m.]

If not, it would not be an appropriate tool to use. We would have something like a

youth agreement or something else.

Rosalyn Bird : Okay. I appreciate that.

This clause confused me because you’re talking about a child that has no parent, and

then in (

a) it says, “at least one parent,” and then in (

b) it says: “at least one

parent.” The language is confusing, so I needed clarification on that, because if

it’s confusing to me, it may be actually confusing to others, which is, again, one

of the reasons I like the word “guardian,” particularly in cases like this.

Paragraph (3) indicates that if there are Indigenous children involved, the First

Nation, the Nisg̱a’a Nation, the village, the treaty Nation or the legal entity representing that child’s

community should be subject or part of a safety agreement.

My question to the minister is: how much weight is a director expected to give if

the community’s opinion differs from the parents or the director themselves?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : For the member, the sections of the act, 19.2, sections (1) and (2), outline who

“must” be a party to a safety plan. Section (3) outlines who “may” be a party to a

safety plan. If a parent is uncomfortable with any party being a part of a safety

plan, they can determine that that party not be a part of a safety plan.

[5:00 p.m.]

Heather Maahs : My question is along the same lines but a little different.

Are the criteria for a safety plan for an Indigenous child, parent applied to the

nations — Scw’exmx or Xyólheméylh, whoever — or do they have their own provisions

for safety plans?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Safety plan agreements are agreements when the province is exercising jurisdiction

over child and family services. So it would apply to when we are exercising jurisdiction.

Heather Maahs : Thank you for that clarification.

I have a question around the criteria used to determine a child or parent identifying

as Indigenous. If there is a parent who is constantly having issues with their safety

plan and is failing it but still wants to retain visitation, and suddenly that parent

declares that they identify as Indigenous, what are the criteria around understanding

that that may be a way of circumventing rules or time factors?

I actually am aware of a situation. What did happen was that everything stopped, and

there was no contact with the parents for another six months because it flipped into

the nation’s piece.

My question is: what are the criteria around a declaration of identifying as Indigenous?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : A few things.

First and foremost, the province does not arbitrate someone’s indigeneity, nor do

we ever step away from a child protection concern until we know and are sure that

those concerns are appropriately being dealt with through programs and services. Those

situations can be incredibly unique.

How we interact, on decisions that we make when there are Indigenous children involved,

is outlined, in part, in the act. I can provide that to the member opposite. I do

know that all of our offices receive correspondence and we’ve interacted with people

in our community who have a variety of experiences.

I would caution members of this House to know that there are limitations in what can

be shared by way of information under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

I think there are a number of circumstances where members of this House, or the public,

do not have all of the information available that’s obtained under that act, and I’d

just caution around that.

Rosalyn Bird : I understand the challenges with First Nations, Indigenous communities and Métis

taking over their own child welfare. It’s a very complicated process. With policy,

procedure and law, it’s a big, big piece.

I do have one question, though. In the process of developing what those relationships,

policies and procedures, etc., look like, what happens if you have two parents that

are living in separate households and they each have safety plans that they’ve engaged

in? One is involving a First Nations or an Indigenous community or a support agency,

and the other parent’s doesn’t. If there’s a conflict between those two plans, can

you help me understand what happens in a circumstance like that?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Just a couple quick things.

Jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of child welfare services are outside of the scope

of this bill, firstly.

Secondly, we have situations all of the time where parents are separated and there

are disagreements. That does not have to do with, necessarily, a child who’s Indigenous,

and we would not have competing safety plans. We wouldn’t have different safety plans

that compete with one another. We would work with the family on a joint safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird : I wasn’t suggesting that you would have different, competing safety plans. That’s

not what I was suggesting at all. I was saying that families are families and humans

are humans. People don’t always agree, and circumstances change, and things can erupt

or explode on the fly. That’s why I was asking the question. I wasn’t trying to be

disrespectful.

This is, as I said before, a very complicated process. I was just trying to understand,

if that particular situation does arise, is there a process that we engage in? You

know, is it a family conference? Is it…? That’s why I’m asking the question. I don’t

mean any disrespect.

I know the ministry is doing good work, but this is something that has happened. It

will probably continue to happen, hopefully not frequently. Again, is there a